Articles & Essays Book Reviews Creative Writing
Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Volume 13 Number 3, December 2012
___________________________________________________________________
Jaén, Isabel and Julien J. Simon, eds. Cognitive Literary Studies. University of Texas Press, 2012
Reviewed by
UCLA
I’m surprised that Cognitive Literary Studies, edited by Isabel Jaén and Julien J. Simon and published in 2012 by The University of Texas Press, has not been more frequently reviewed, even at this early stage of its publication. It is timely. It reflects the burgeoning field of cognitive literary theory. It is a well-constructed, fairly comprehensive collection of selections that represent a significant segment of this field of academic study. It is accessible, for the most part, by the non-cogniscenti [not even an oblique pun is intended here!], and it is a useful research resource for those who are in fact knowledgeable scholars within the field.
Before going further, let me provide an advance disclosure of my limitations and perspectives as reviewer. I have certainly partaken-, and much of what I have spoken and written about academically probably qualifies me for at least a perimeter-stake at the edges of the field of Cognitive Literary Studies. But the fact is, my credentials place me more directly into the category of those who create the objects of the studies. I am primarily a poet and writer of fiction, and a teacher of the craft of creative writing.
The book is an unabashed paean to cognitive literary theory, a celebration of the profusion of cognitive studies since the field’s predominant development in the 1990’s. Indeed it remains now a rapidly expanding industry of critical reasoning.
This is as it should be. There is much to celebrate, including and perhaps especially the departure from some of the more sterile dead-ends and critical departures that Post-Structuralism had engendered. Now here is a new field -- Embodied Cognitive Studies indicating as the term does, an integration of what once had been cold collection of cognitive or linguistic theory into dynamic analysis of emotion-based brain function and psychology -- coupled with the placement of the human personality within the social environment. All of this comes conveniently at a time when neurology is experiencing its own heyday, facilitated by dramatic advances in the development and technology of testing devices.
The forward by F. Elizabeth Hart boasts that the book, Cognitive Literary Studies “actively performs the collaboration between humanists and scientists that these volumes have tended to hypothesize but have not generally realized -- as an ideal research scenario for the field.” As we shall see, that boast goes perhaps somewhat too far, notwithstanding that it is well-intended.
The forward also emphasizes another purported strength of the book, its “methodological eclecticism,” which is of course a euphemistic way of saying that the chapters in the book tend to range extensively over the cognitive studies map. This is in fact true, and indeed it does.
Eighteen authors contribute their work. Of these, seven are scientists [all of them psychologists]. The rest are literary theorists from the “humanities” side of the spectrum.
Twelve chapters [inclusive of a final “Postscript” chapter] follow the initial overview chapter, written by the co-editors. Some of the literary works analyzed include Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, Barrie’s Peter and Wendy (Peter Pan), Shakespeare’s Hamlet, various fictional works by Franz Kafka, philosophical work by the 19th Century philosopher David Hartley and the work of various 19th Century Romantic poets, as well as poetic works of Emily Dickinson, Billy Collins, and assorted modern poets.
The book is divided into five sections, each of which is preceded by brief, introductory notes: I. Cognitive Literary Studies Today; II. Cognitive Literary Sciences and Literary Theory in Dialogue; III. Neurological Approaches to Literature; IV. Language, Literature, and Mind Processes; and V. Literature and Human Development
In the book’s introduction, the editors identify “cognitive literary studies” as “a new and exciting field aiming to understand literature in the context of the embodied mind and its dynamic interaction with the environment.” They identify their goal, to erase “ . . . that erstwhile line drawn in the sand . . . that keeps scientists and humanists apart.” They emphasize the need to strive for “consilience:” i.e. “unity among the different realms of knowledge.” And they issue “a call for inclusiveness and cooperation.”
Unfortunately, none of the co-authored chapters reflect actual collaborations across the science/humanities chasm -- which is the first indication that we have not crossed that “erstwhile line drawn in the sand” and not quite reached the “ideal” research collaboration level that Prof. Hart’s preface signaled. You will see at the conclusion of this review some of the reasons why I do not necessarily feel that this is entirely a failing.
There is no single developing theme for the book, owing to the “methodological eclecticism” of the included works. Therefore, a very brief capsule of the separate chapter submissions follows:
The overview chapter, a kind of a survey of the field, is twelve pages long and contains 164 end notes, machine-gunned at the reader at the rate of 14 per page [possibly a world record for endnotes per page!]. Saying this, I don’t intend to take anything away from it. The chapter covers a lot of territory, and this is admirable. The concluding portion again notes what the authors see as “an increasing rapproachement” during the past decade “between literary scholars and cognitive scientists, as well as an effort by these groups to consider human biological universals in relation to specific cultural and historical factors.” And they note that “We find ourselves at a decisive turn in cognitive literary studies, moving toward a more cooperative investigation of the cognition of literature.”
After that first chapter, the progress of the book settles down to provide a rather comfortable, slightly less [for the most part] jargon-infused, and enlightening reading experience.
Richard Gerrig, whose Chapter Two follows the overview, identified prior research on the fascinating topic of “anomalous suspense” [i.e. the re-creation of a sense of suspense in spectators who are already aware of a narrative’s outcome which has also been labelled “the paradox of suspense.” Gerrig attempted to follow through on a series of limited and fragmentary experiments he had conducted, to try to confirm the effect on readers of texts that he selected or created. His analysis opened immediate possibilities for dialogue and challenge.
Joseph Murphy [Chapter Three] is not a neurologist, but he definitely knows a lot about the functions and capabilities of the field. He discusses the importance of a scientific exploration of narrative, the universal vehicle for human communication, “using testable hypotheses.” Neurological scan techniques should be used “to study cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying [essential processes] in narrative comprehension.” The process must seek “the neuroscientific underpinnings of literary experience.” But he argues that “the contribution of literary criticism at the stage of experimental design should be considered indispensable.” Unfortunately, he also notes that true interdisciplinary cooperation isn’t happening yet. And, much as the book’s introduction, the overview chapter and the preface may actively try to wish us into an idealized future of “similitude” [cooperation among scientific and humanistic elements of cognitive studies] by Murphy’s account, it just isn’t happening yet.
Norman Holland [Chapter Four] presents an eminently readable analysis of metafiction. After providing important background coverage that included a short cortical and hemispherical evaluation of the brain’s perception and reception of the literary/artistic experience, a brief exploration of mirror neurons, and a discussion of the natural process of the simulation of counter-factuals, Holland proceeds to an illuminating analysis of Cervantes’ Don Quixote as one of the seminal metafictional texts. Along the way, he briefly explores the paradoxical experience of art and literature: We have a brain designed for the sole purpose of action that enables us to enjoy works of art precisely because we know we are not going to act on them.
Patrick Colm Hogan [Chapter Five] presents in painstaking and meticulous scientific detail [somewhat noteworthy for the fact his credentials are on the humanist side of the spectrum], a neurological analysis of the grief of Hamlet, as it derives through sub-cortical emotional response, appraisal and attachment. Interestingly in its unfolding, the discourse manages somehow to wander through a short digression on a young adult male accepting a chocolate peanut butter cup from a sensuously attractive female, only to discover that the taste and texture of the peanut butter cup had turned to the consistency of pork. [I’d explain more, but that just might spoil the ending!]
Aaron Mishara [Chapter Six], a psychologist, begins by declaring: “Kafka’s literary writing provides data about the structure of the human self.” The only surprise there is that, to the untrained psychological eye, such as mine, it would appear that Kafka was quite an unusual “self.” Nevertheless, Mishara goes on to analyze not only the content of some of Kafka’s writing but also his actual writing habits, which Mishara determined to be a form of “narrative entrancement.” He concludes that the data he has evaluated “reflect a change of consciousness that has its neurobiological correlates in increased cortical excitability of a social network (activated during states of sensory deprivation, social deprivation, or sleep deprivation.)”
Margaret Freeman [Chapter Seven] explores the topic of “poetic iconicity” as she analyzes one of Emily Dickinson’s poems. In the process, she leads readers comfortably into and through the relatively jargon-rich topics of “blending” theory [“the creation of new meaning by integrating existing information”] and iconicity. Her lucid analysis renders the field accessible and understandable, even for the uninitiated. In the process she digresses to clarify the trend that expands the term “cognitive” to include “all aspects of brain functioning, including emotion,” culminating in recognition of “the primacy of emotions . . ..” Along the way, she identifies the “goal of all poetry” to be “matching language to experienced reality.” In similar vein, she also notes that: “Words are made to work . . . to express a reality that lies beyond words.”
Michael Sinding [Chapter Eight] analyzes the blending of texts in an episode from Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. The title of his chapter tells a lot: “A Sermon in the Midst of a Smutty Tale.” His discussion embraces the topic of genre mixture that incorporates an actual sermon that Sterne gave -- into a detailed episode in the novel to illustrate blend structure and genre blending. Sinding’s discussion incorporates a detailed concept outline, as well as a nifty diagram to illustrate what it all means.
Nigel Fabb and Morris Halle [Chapter Nine] provide an analysis of the cognitive aspects of metrical poetic verse, in which mathematics and asterisks track verses, and parenthetical symbols group them.
Claiborne Rice [Chapter Ten] applies what he understands of neurologist Antonio Damasio’s Somatic Marker analysis to an attempt to understand the transformation that occurs in the comprehension of modern poetry, how “reading poetry can stimulate the sense of experiencing a consciousness.” The linkage of Damasio to modern poetry was not entirely clear to me, but the evaluation of somatic marker theory, especially as it was done by Rice, a non-scientist, was interesting and accessible. The rest was the best that could be expected of a romp through the morasses of modern poetry.
Brad Sullivan [Chapter Eleven], in his evaluation of early 19th Century Romance period texts, was permitted the license to use and apply the term “theory of mind” entirely counter to its now-customary definition within the nomenclature of modern neurology -- which is certainly an indication of the “methodological eclecticism” of the assembled texts of this collection.
The penultimate Chapter Twelve, by Glenda Sacks, explores the rich text of Barrie’s Peter and Wendy, in ways that are simultaneously fanciful and classically critical, positing Neverland as metaphor for the child-mind and a manifestation of “intersubjectivity” and “simulation,” with overlay references to Lev Vygotsky. Placement of this chapter enabled it to serve as a kind of allegorical summing-up of the chapter contents that preceded it. All in all, this provided an apt fairy-tale ending for these discourses on the subjects of cognitive literary studies.
In a final “postscript” chapter, the psychologists Keith Oatley, Raymond Mar, and Maya Djikic, repeating the refrain originally noted by Joseph Murphy, acknowledge the historically “embedded antagonism” between departments of literature and psychology that have caused them at best to “tend to take no notice of each other.” They also confirm the value of the narrative as the essential means by which humans communicate. They “envisage more studies of how people’s conceptions of others and themselves change in engagement with fiction” and seek additional research to explore how brain function is engaged in the formation and perception of fiction. Their conclusion, also mirroring Murphy’s, is that “the future needs to be interdisciplinary.”
And yet, I’m reminded of something that Jonathan Gotschall noted in his recent work: The Storytelling Animal. Fictions, fantasies, dreams -- these are, to the humanistic imagination, a kind of sacred preserve. They are the last bastion of magic. They are the one place science should not penetrate. Such a sentiment definitely applies the brakes to the motif expressed and repeated in the opening pages and at times throughout Cognitive Literary Theory -- the quest for interdisciplinary cooperation and collaboration, for “similitude.” The reason I recommend that everyone interested in the serious and critical study of literature read this book is to focus attention on what is being done in this particular field. Cognitive literary theory is, in my opinion, the most important area of literary criticism, the one that is likely to continue to flourish. Everyone should be aware of its progress, not only to experience its new wisdom, but also to monitor its potential excesses. Among those excesses: over-jargon-izing for the purpose of erecting exclusivity barriers and sheltering meaningless and unnecessary research, and the unsupervised encroachment by “science” into a field that needs the presence of informed literary sophistication.
Most importantly, there is the risk of too much “similitude” that enables penetration by science beyond what is actually a healthy literature/science barrier. That “erstwhile line drawn in the sand” referred to in the book’s introduction should, in my opinion, never be completely “erased.” One of the functions of the evolved humanist is, at least occasionally, to recognize the limits of science and to caution the scientist against over-extension.
Neurology, at this stage of its advanced development and technical prowess, is and remains unable to explain or understand consciousness as a brain function. It tries, but it simply doesn’t know, promising only that someday it will. As David Chalmers has noted: “Nothing in Western Science predicts that any living creature should be conscious.” Consciousness is irreducible by science.
Science is also not likely to derive an understanding of the beauty in a single rose. To grasp that beauty, the rose’s essence must be discovered and portrayed. For this we look to poetry, to literature, to visual art, yes even at times, to sensitive and thoughtful literary criticism. Only literature and poetry are able to portray that which is un-manifest -- the soul of things.
Consciousness and the essence of beauty are major components of literature. The complex and mystical realms of consciousness propel the best of literature. Now that we are becoming aware not only of the advances but also the limits of science, it is the humanists who from time to time are called upon to serve as guardians at the gate, declaring what is and what is not fair ground for study. We must render unto science only that which is reducible for scientific analysis. Nothing more.
Cognitive Literary Theory is a very important book, because of its ‘methodologically eclectic’ scope and because of the accessibility of its style. It enables everyone to prepare for the essential dialogue that will enable the field to progress effectively without overstepping what should be its bounds. Reading this book will help us all to begin to develop a proper sense of where we all stand, as cognitive literary studies advance.